TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal Under Central Excise Act Dismissed; Appellant Directed to Appeal to Supreme Court for Legal Recourse.</h1> <h3>M/s PEB Steel Lloyd (I) Limited Versus The Commissioner Central Goods Services Tax And Central Excise, The Assistant Commissioner Central Excise, Customs, And Service Tax</h3> The HC determined that the appeal filed under Section 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not maintainable. The appellant was granted permission to ... Appropriate forum - Maintainability of appeal u/s 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - determination of question relating to rate of duty or excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment - HELD THAT:- The appeal would not be maintainable before this Court. However, the appellant would be at liberty to assail the order by filing an appeal u/s 35(L) of the Act of 1944 before the Apex Court. However, on filing of the photocopy of the original documents, the certified copy of the original documents, if any, be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant. Appeal disposed off. Issues involved: The maintainability of the appeal u/s 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 before the High Court.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal u/s 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944The appeal was filed u/s 35(H) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the assessee against an order passed by the CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The learned Appellate Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Indore. The order determined central excise duty along with penalty and interest against the appellant. The respondent's counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal u/s 35(H) of the Act of 1944, arguing that the appeal should have been filed u/s 35(G) of the Act. It was contended that the order passed by the CESTAT did not relate to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or excise or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, thus the appeal should lie to the Apex Court u/s 35(L) of the Act of 1944. The respondent relied on various judgments to support this contention, emphasizing that the appeal should be filed under Section 35-L and not under Section 35-G of the Act of 1944 to the High Court.Decision:The High Court held that the appeal would not be maintainable before them. The appellant was granted the liberty to challenge the order by filing an appeal u/s 35(L) of the Act of 1944 before the Apex Court. The present appeal was disposed of accordingly, allowing the appellant to pursue the matter further through the appropriate legal channel.
TaxTMI 
